Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

AMA executive council accountability

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

AMA executive council accountability

Old 12-29-2015, 05:24 PM
  #51  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg
LOL.
So much squirm, so much FAIL.
You tried this line of troll rubbish before, and it didn't work for you........
Old 12-29-2015, 05:54 PM
  #52  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ
You tried this line of troll rubbish before, and it didn't work for you........
Originally Posted by combatpigg
Could you save me the trouble of flying down there and give me a brief outline of the services they perform that you think I am not aware of...?
Still waiting for your answer to this very simple question.
Expecting me to spend $500 to fly down to your AMA PowWow is ridiculous, so either you can make good on your boast that the AMA provides services that I'm not aware of..or go sit in the corner.
Old 12-29-2015, 06:34 PM
  #53  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

That ain't me jeff
That's Tim
Old 12-29-2015, 07:05 PM
  #54  
Red Raider
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Responding to your continued semantic arguments is a waste of time. You're not interested in discussing the issue. You're too busy insulting people and trying to correct specific language to make it fit your notion of PC. You want specifics -
1). admit that trying to bring the 1,000's of toy drone owners into the AMA was a mistake;
2). separate models from drones by our own definition;
3). Deliberately distance ourselves from the toy owners;
4). Deliberately distance ourselves from the commercial drone operators;
5). encourage the EC to be more responsive to the membership before making major decisions;
6). throw the drones to the FAA wolves, stop supporting them and say publicly we don't support them;

7). Now, IF the membership agrees with this, and the EC does not, then we need to replace them through the process in our bylaws not through insurrection.
Old 12-29-2015, 07:16 PM
  #55  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Perfectr

OOooopps!!
Old 12-29-2015, 07:20 PM
  #56  
Red Raider
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The purpose of this is to stop the government intervention into OUR hobby. We didn't do anything to bring this on ourselves except to align with a group of toy owners that have displayed total irresponsibility and that have absolutely ZERO inclination to join AMA or abide by our safety rules. We have to separate from them or go down with them.
Old 12-29-2015, 07:26 PM
  #57  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I know
I know
I just could not agree with you more
Old 12-29-2015, 07:33 PM
  #58  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I am just adding this to what you said that I agree with:

The issue as I see it, is not really the registration at all


It is rather should we allow the FAA to interpret any and all laws already written

and designed to afford us some degree of protection so we can
enjoy our hobby without undo (that is the word open to interpretation)

harassment.

Or object to their interpretation, because more and more sweeping interpretations may be a coming.

If the FAA has complete and unlimited powers to interpret, regulate, affix penalties etc.
And our lawsuit had no merit against the FAA, would it not behoove the AMA to present
these facts to the membership.
Like:
Hey guys I spoke to the AMA lawyers, here is what they said , Your case is groundless
and here are the reasons why....... or is that to much info for us to handle.
but no, the AMA is proud to announce they are moving ahead with a lawsuit

Smell the air that isn't nitro
or napalm
or victory

Smells like pacification

I asked a person If the rules of the FAA were completely optional would you accept or decline, yet to get a response.
Old 12-29-2015, 07:58 PM
  #59  
Red Raider
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
I am just adding this to what you said that I agree with:

The issue as I see it, is not really the registration at all


It is rather should we allow the FAA to interpret any and all laws already written

and designed to afford us some degree of protection so we can
enjoy our hobby without undo (that is the word open to interpretation)

harassment.

Or object to their interpretation, because more and more sweeping interpretations may be a coming.

If the FAA has complete and unlimited powers to interpret, regulate, affix penalties etc.
And our lawsuit had no merit against the FAA, would it not behoove the AMA to present
these facts to the membership.
Like:
Hey guys I spoke to the AMA lawyers, here is what they said , Your case is groundless
and here are the reasons why....... or is that to much info for us to handle.
but no, the AMA is proud to announce they are moving ahead with a lawsuit

Smell the air that isn't nitro
or napalm
or victory

Smells like pacification

I asked a person If the rules of the FAA were completely optional would you accept or decline, yet to get a response.
Completely optional or not, I don't want the govt in my hobby. Period. I'm not going to register until the registration nazi comes for me. And I'm sure they will. I'm sure they already have AMA's membership list.
Old 12-29-2015, 07:59 PM
  #60  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Red Raider
Responding to your continued semantic arguments is a waste of time. You're not interested in discussing the issue. You're too busy insulting people and trying to correct specific language to make it fit your notion of PC. Please, spare me the sanctimony and hypocrisy. You opened your mouth with the first insult in post 25, acting just like the other infantile one, and then again in post 43...so ya know, lets not play that game? and You want specifics -
1). admit that trying to bring the 1,000's of toy drone owners into the AMA was a mistake; nobody will do that as it wasn't a mistake. Odd thing to hope for, an apology, as if that will change anything.
2). separate models from drones by our own definition; Doesn't matter what WE define...that's the FAA's call, and they made it. No turning back time.
3). Deliberately distance ourselves from the toy owners; That's hilarious, and elitist in the same breath. What a hoot. Breaking news, we're all toy owners, then again it's popular here for some to classify themselves as other than toy owners, by virtue of building and how much they spend, and not flying foamies.
4). Deliberately distance ourselves from the commercial drone operators; Now you're making sense, but I don't recall this huge push by the AMA to advocate for commercial use overall. Perhaps you meant that for Amazon?
5). encourage the EC to be more responsive to the membership before making major decisions; Again, making sense here. There is already a mechanism in place for feedback to the EC, and that's via Leader members,AVP, and VPs. Direct communication is always available, and they have conducted surveys of the membership as well. Not a perfect process, but there is no such thing. Also, what is "major" to one person or group might not be for another, so it's not a perfect science to pick which is. In this case, even if the membership was polled and they said "ban drones", it wouldn't have made a difference in the world, the FAA made the decision.
6). throw the drones to the FAA wolves, stop supporting them and say publicly we don't support them; Not going to happen. If for no other reason they they would never ever ever hear the end of it from people like say, you and the others, who would probably go into apoplexy complaining about all the past work done, and money spent etc etc. I'll admit I'm presuming there, but given the prior comments, it's a safe bet.

7). Now, IF the membership agrees with this, and the EC does not, then we need to replace them through the process in our bylaws not through insurrection.
Completely agree. Now the issue becomes who steps in to replace the old guard. Are there lots of people involved now who are eligible to run for office, and are they even willing to do it. If it's anything like the most recent VP elections, the answer is no, not really. And to that, we might what to dig deep on the reasons why that is the case.
Originally Posted by Red Raider
The purpose of this is to stop the government intervention into OUR hobby. We didn't do anything to bring this on ourselves except to align with a group of toy owners that have displayed total irresponsibility and that have absolutely ZERO inclination to join AMA or abide by our safety rules. We have to separate from them or go down with them.
There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is. And if you think it all happened because of the AMA not distancing itself from a DJI Phantom, well, I think you are missing the huge big pic. This was a slow moving tidal wave that we got wrapped up in. Yes it sucks, yes it's unfair, yes it's mildly intrusive. Do you really think fighting back even harder now against the FAA is really the right way to go, given where we are at now? Forget the doom and gloom predictions for one minute...if the registration is the sum total of what we have to do, is this a dealbreaker for you or the AMA? I say no.

If the call is to go forward and fight fight fight, then be prepared to pay for that right by way of additional membership dues. Fighting the govt isn't cheap or easy. I think the AMA needs to be thinking about compromise right now. If they can feed over our numbers to the FAA (with our perimission), work for that. If they can get specific written agreements on the 400 foot issue, get waivers for that in writing. Also, get all or as many of the fields in that 30nm zone back open. If the closer ones in need to go all electric or park flyer to stay open, that might be the way to go. Compromise sucks, but that might be what is needed. Pure speculation I know, but I don't see going backwards to try to change something that's already a done deal. We are simply not fighting from a position of strength.
Old 12-29-2015, 08:15 PM
  #61  
Red Raider
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (86)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It's not elitist to make a distinction. The TOY that the kid next door got is NOT the same as my 104" Mustang. Nothing elitist. And yes, it was a mistake. Not one requiring an apology but an adjustment in operating philosophy.
Old 12-29-2015, 08:24 PM
  #62  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

O/K, we'll agree to disagree. Have a good night!
Old 12-29-2015, 08:34 PM
  #63  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

"There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is."
Well who is being a gloomy gus now?
So if there is no stopping it let's accelerate it yeah that is the ticket
Let's give up give in get it over with sooner rather than later

So it was a slow tidal wave or fast it was visible yet we couldn't negotiate around it or under it or over it?

Do we really think fight back is the right way to go?
Do you really think rolling over is the right way to go?
What would get you to fight for your self, is there anything that would make you ressit?

If the registration is the sum total of what we have to do?
What, I thought your course of action would prevent further actions by the FAA?
You mean there may be more in store for us.?
And then what ? Worry about it then? Roll over again?

Registration ain't the problem it's FAA re interpretation it just happens to be something easy to do for so many
$5 bucks some numbers a tattoo on your head easy right?

And I thought fighting the government was easy and cheap?
Compromise ? remember compromise would i require disagreement with the great and all powerful FAA
and possibly conflict with lawyer and briefcases and such.

Are you advocating that the AMA release are info to the FAA (without our permission) I believe they probably have already
or will soon but are you endorsing as some hostage money in exchange for the permission to fly.

And do you support flying over 400 feet what do you think is the maximum height to fly at?
Do you want to be able to film the in flight movie in the airliners with a drone?

The call to go forward has already gone out in the form of the AMA lawsuit whether it is only a half-heart pacification we will know soon enough/
But lemmings can stay home
Old 12-29-2015, 08:39 PM
  #64  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

[QUOTE} There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is. And if you think it all happened because of the AMA not distancing itself from a DJI Phantom, well, I think you are missing the huge big pic. This was a slow moving tidal wave that we got wrapped up in. [/QUOTE]

Regardless whether or not this situation was avoidable, does ANYBODY believe that the AMA took EVERY STEP they possibly could have in order to RESIST...?
Old 12-29-2015, 08:49 PM
  #65  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

No I think most of the steps
encouraged greater and less safe drone usage
But dam it, if those drone ad's in MA aren't purty!

combatpig if your interested in some of the misinformation about our so called AMA insurance
let me know
It's eye opening

Last edited by jeffrey solomon; 12-29-2015 at 08:57 PM.
Old 12-29-2015, 08:55 PM
  #66  
tmulligan
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: jonesboro, AR
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

This issue does not seem to be the fault of the FAA, they are responsible for insuring the safety of commercial and general aviation. Nor does it seem to be the fault of the AMA, they have been obviously trying to negotiate this issue for a long time. However, it does seem to be the fault of pilots (fixed wing, rotary, quad, etc) who have flown their models in ways that seem obviously dangerous (eg, flying near airports, in the flight paths of commercial or general aviation planes, copters, etc). They likely make the situation worse when they advertise their risky behavior by posting it on the web. I bet that if all of us flew safely and conscientiously avoided risk, there would be no need for FAA licensing.
Old 12-29-2015, 09:07 PM
  #67  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tmulligan
This issue does not seem to be the fault of the FAA, they are responsible for insuring the safety of commercial and general aviation. Nor does it seem to be the fault of the AMA, they have been obviously trying to negotiate this issue for a long time. However, it does seem to be the fault of pilots (fixed wing, rotary, quad, etc) who have flown their models in ways that seem obviously dangerous (eg, flying near airports, in the flight paths of commercial or general aviation planes, copters, etc). They likely make the situation worse when they advertise their risky behavior by posting it on the web. I bet that if all of us flew safely and conscientiously avoided risk, there would be no need for FAA licensing.
The trouble making drone flyers are [from our vantage point] an unstoppable force that could only do us harm by association. The only control we could have exercised was to completely distance ourselves from them. We needed to make it abundantly clear to the FAA that what we do as traditional RC Flyers has nothing at all to do with models that are equipped to be flown beyond our unassisted view.
Old 12-29-2015, 09:26 PM
  #68  
jeffrey solomon
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I agree that there have been many AMA flyers that have flown where they should not have flown from AMA fields. I know several and cautioned them about
the consequences to little avail. When they do it off site and are snagged there should be penalties imposed on them, but whether they should be imposed by their club or the AMA is not for me to say at this time, haven't really thought about that one yet.

The FAA is certainly responsible for general aviation full scale and model. And they will interpret their own rule as they see fit, however the
AMA and other concerned groups participated in the FAA creation of the rules did they not?
Was not the AMA consulted? Did they not have input?
Or was their participation just for the cameras?
Was not an "ad hoc" agreement reached between the AMA and the FAA in drafting the 2012 Rules for Model Aircraft?
Now the FAA wants to interpret and extend what was agreed to under the heading of safety?
It is not the registration I believe we should take issue with but the FAAs unchecked ability to interpret, modify, alter and change legislation they
produced, agreed to and signed off on. If we do not take issue and pursue this issue then the
legislative procedure is superfluous. Because the FAA is going to change it any time, any way with out accountability.

There is nothing obvious about the AMA position about drones. In fact if you know the reason for the purchase of most drones and the manner they are flown in, I think ,a reasonable person would find a glaring contradiction in the AMA. Drones are not flown at clubs, and if they are flown at clubs or with permission then they are not a problem. Most are flown for exploration of prohibited and inaccessible areas.
How can the AMA reconcile that?
As far as the AMA being absolved of fault either through omission or commission , based on a long history of negotiations this statement is unsupported by
the facts of today.
Old 12-30-2015, 04:40 AM
  #69  
on_your_six
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maryland, MD
Posts: 1,399
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Sorry, but I don't buy it... the slippery slope started with computer programmable radios that allowed you to automate and mix functions.

It started when the pin board disappeared and 72mhz was not needed. The aircraft had better control and could not be knocked out of the sky by simply turning on another radio tuned to that frequency.

It started with mechanical gyros on the tails of helicopters, that progressed to accurate computer chip gyros from the gaming industry.

It really started with airplanes and helicopters using Lithium Polymer batteries with high power density, quick discharge and recharge rates.

Everything that it took to put a multi-rotor in the air evolved from model airplanes and helicopters. As the proud parents of the multi-rotor, you want to throw the baby to the crocs. Nice parenting skills.

Last edited by on_your_six; 12-30-2015 at 04:42 AM.
Old 12-30-2015, 04:55 AM
  #70  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
If the call is to go forward and fight fight fight, then be prepared to pay for that right by way of additional membership dues. Fighting the govt isn't cheap or easy. I think the AMA needs to be thinking about compromise right now.
Sadly, I think it's not a matter of IF we're stuck with a 400' AGL limit, but rather it's a matter of WHEN. Commercial drones will happen, and FAA has been directed by Congress to find a way to integrate them safely. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that that public isn't going to want them flying in the same airspace as they fly in airliners. Most manned aircraft operate between 500' AGL and 50,000. Helos operating SVFR, military training flights, and VFR over remote areas is stuff down low, then airways start at around 1200 or so and go up to 17,999, and then flight levels are full of airliners above that. So if you want to keep commercial UAS away from manned stuff, then you have to either put them very high or below manned aircraft. High isn't practical, so that leaves one choice...low.

If they're going to make big $$ interest fly low, where do you think that leaves non-commercial users and the AMA's 130,000 or so paying members? Yep. Down low. And our voice is going to be limited against Amazon and Walmart and their armies of lawyers.

Altitude separation is probably the most reliable way to keep sUAS/UAS apart from manned aircraft, and I cannot see how FAA does not use that tool. I think FAA is trying to show us the future, with the acknowledgement to stay below 400 as part of the registration process. It's just a matter of time before they formally codify it.

Last edited by franklin_m; 12-30-2015 at 04:58 AM.
Old 12-30-2015, 05:04 AM
  #71  
twistman
My Feedback: (42)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liberty, SC
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yes throw it to the crocs, we don't need them. If you want to call it parenting,then go raise your Demon baby all by your self.
Old 12-30-2015, 06:18 AM
  #72  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
"There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is."
Well who is being a gloomy gus now?
So if there is no stopping it let's accelerate it yeah that is the ticket
Let's give up give in get it over with sooner rather than later

So it was a slow tidal wave or fast it was visible yet we couldn't negotiate around it or under it or over it?

Do we really think fight back is the right way to go?
Do you really think rolling over is the right way to go?
What would get you to fight for your self, is there anything that would make you ressit?

If the registration is the sum total of what we have to do?
What, I thought your course of action would prevent further actions by the FAA?
You mean there may be more in store for us.?
And then what ? Worry about it then? Roll over again?

Registration ain't the problem it's FAA re interpretation it just happens to be something easy to do for so many
$5 bucks some numbers a tattoo on your head easy right?

And I thought fighting the government was easy and cheap?
Compromise ? remember compromise would i require disagreement with the great and all powerful FAA
and possibly conflict with lawyer and briefcases and such.

Are you advocating that the AMA release are info to the FAA (without our permission) I believe they probably have already
or will soon but are you endorsing as some hostage money in exchange for the permission to fly.

And do you support flying over 400 feet what do you think is the maximum height to fly at?
Do you want to be able to film the in flight movie in the airliners with a drone?

The call to go forward has already gone out in the form of the AMA lawsuit whether it is only a half-heart pacification we will know soon enough/
But lemmings can stay home
reductio ad absurdum at it's finest. Acknowledging that the govt is involved in this hobby isn't doom and gloom, it's just noting the obvious. It's unfortunate that our hobby was affected, but again...the reality the times and technology have changed, and the govt is addressing that, albeit not in a way our hobby likes. I absolutely love that my govt is involved in my life though, I know that's not a popular sentiment from the small govt folks...but hey, I appreciate the work folks at the CDC do, and the NTSB, and those dudes over at the FDA who stop importation of fake food and medicine and things of that nature. Let's not forget the peeps at the FTC either who help stop companies from become so powerful that consumers get screwed. So..you know, all those alphabet soup agencies aren't all that bad, but humans being what we are we need to complain about something, all the while wanting something different.
Old 12-30-2015, 06:22 AM
  #73  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
No I think most of the steps
encouraged greater and less safe drone usage
But dam it, if those drone ad's in MA aren't purty!

combatpig if your interested in some of the misinformation about our so called AMA insurance
let me know
It's eye opening
ohh...juicy behind the scenes secret treasure troves of AMA insurance information. 60 minutes expose soon to follow? By all means, post it up for all to see...if its that eye opening shouldn't all the folks get to see it? Would I be spoiling the punch line by noting the coverage is excess/secondary?
Old 12-30-2015, 06:27 AM
  #74  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg
[QUOTE} There is no stopping government intervention in the hobby, it's here forever, that's just how it is. And if you think it all happened because of the AMA not distancing itself from a DJI Phantom, well, I think you are missing the huge big pic. This was a slow moving tidal wave that we got wrapped up in.


Regardless whether or not this situation was avoidable, does ANYBODY believe that the AMA took EVERY STEP they possibly could have in order to RESIST...?
[/QUOTE]

Well, I think this is one of those can't win situations they find themselves in. You can't really dismiss this by saying "regardless if the situation was avoidable"...it simply wasn't. But, based on all of the press releases the AMA issued which clearly indicated their displeasure at the process (which they were criticized for issuing), as well as them filing legal actions, I'd have to say they sure did try to resist. And they have been criticized for that as well, naturally.
Old 12-30-2015, 06:31 AM
  #75  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg
The trouble making drone flyers are [from our vantage point] an unstoppable force that could only do us harm by association. The only control we could have exercised was to completely distance ourselves from them. We needed to make it abundantly clear to the FAA that what we do as traditional RC Flyers has nothing at all to do with models that are equipped to be flown beyond our unassisted view.
And the presumption here is what..that the AMA didn't distance themselves and now look where we are? Nothing in the registration process even hints that this move would have made a difference. The FAA already knew our position on registration, they did what they wanted, and it didn't matter if what you fly is a .6 pound foamy or and 12 pound warbird. The govt wasn't going to take time to differentiate the myriad of aircraft entering the national air space just to satisfy our membership.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.